The opposition in the face of GERB officially announced that it is filing a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court (CC) over the newly adopted State Budget for 2026, with the main legal dispute revolving around the set record deficit of 5.7% of GDP.
From a legal point of view, the opposition's claim has its serious arguments, based on the Public Finance Act (PFA) and the Constitution, but the final decision of the judges depends on whether they will accept the annual budget law as special compared to the structural law. The Parliament finally approved the financial framework a few days ago, and the law should come into force on August 1, 2026.
What are the facts about Budget 2026?
The macro-framework, proposed by the Council of Ministers and supported by the ruling majority of “Progressive Bulgaria“, envisages a deficit in the treasury of 7.2 billion euros (5.7% deficit). The main goal of the cabinet, according to Deputy Prime Minister Atanas Pekanov, is to increase incomes and maintain social spending, which, according to the government, has necessitated the higher deficit.
For his part, GERB leader Boyko Borisov sharply criticized these estimates during his visit to Varna, defining the budget as a “complete false start“ and stating that the financial policy violates the country's long-standing rules.
Is the opposition's claim legally sound?
The opposition's arguments, presented in detail by legal experts, are based on a clash between two normative acts and a constitutional principle:
- Violation of the Public Finance Act (PFA): This structural law sets a rigid fiscal framework, according to which the deficit under the consolidated fiscal program cannot exceed 3% of GDP. Exceptions are allowed only in strictly defined extraordinary circumstances (such as war, epidemic or economic downturn exceeding 3%), which are currently absent.
- The principle of the rule of law (Art. 4, para. 1 of the Constitution): This is the core of GERB's complaint. The opposition claims that an annual special law (such as the State Budget Law) cannot suspend or violate a permanent legal framework (the structural ZPF) without the structural law itself being previously amended by the National Assembly.
- The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU: The 3% ceiling is also set out in European standards, with Borisov emphasizing that introducing a law that directly contradicts another law in force is unacceptable.
The Majority's Counterargument
Traditionally, in Bulgarian legal practice, it is assumed that the National Assembly has the supreme will to determine the budget for any particular year. Since the State Budget Act is of the same level of normative hierarchy as the ZPF (both are laws adopted by the parliament), the newer special law can de facto derogate from the general rules for the relevant year. However, whether this violates constitutional foreseeability is the question that the Constitutional Court will have to answer.
What is next procedurally at the moment?
At the moment, the situation is developing along several parallel lines:
Constitutional appeal: GERB is preparing and submitting its motivated request to the Constitutional Court.
Pressure for presidential veto: Meanwhile, the party „Continue the Change“ announced that they had collected over 26,000 signatures in support of a petition demanding that Vice President Iliyana Yotova (who serves as “Dondukov“ 2) veto the budget.
Government position: Deputy Prime Minister Pekanov categorically rejected the possibility of revising the financial framework and defended its parameters.
The Constitutional Court already has a practice in 2026 of overturning decisions of the National Assembly related to energy due to exceeding the budget management competence (Decision under case number 8/2026). This shows that the magistrates strictly monitor the balance of power and compliance with financial discipline.
The Chance for the Constitutional Court to Suspend the State Budget Law
The legal chance for the Constitutional Court (CC) to completely suspend or declare Budget 2026 unconstitutional is assessed by experts as moderate to low, despite the serious arguments of GERB. First of all, in the Bulgarian judiciary there is no procedure for automatic “suspension“ of the current law as a precautionary measure while the court examines it. The budget will enter into force on August 1, 2026 and will be implemented until the Constitutional Court issues a final decision, which usually takes between two and four months.
With regard to the decision on the merits itself, the historical practice of the Constitutional Court shows a strong reluctance of magistrates to interfere in the macroeconomic policy of the executive branch. The court traditionally accepts that the determination of revenues and expenditures is an exclusive prerogative and political responsibility of the National Assembly.
The only real chance for partial success of the appeal is if the judges decide to create a new precedent with which to protect the authority of the structural Public Finance Act against its annual trampling by fiscal majorities. Even in this hypothetical scenario, the Constitutional Court would most likely issue binding prescriptions for future budgets, rather than causing unprecedented financial chaos by repealing the state's current financial framework.